Adverse Possession

• Pages: 218-232

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186946-11

The concept of adverse possession is rooted in the theory that the basis of title to

land in English law is possession. The fact of possession gives a title to the land,

which is good against all persons except one who has a better right to possession. All

titles to land are relative in the sense that a person’s title, including a documentary

(or ‘paper’) title, is only good in so far as there is no other person who can show a

better title. The eect of adverse possession is that a person who is in possession as

a mere trespasser or ‘squatter’ can obtain a good title if the true owner fails to assert

his superior title within the requisite limitation period1 in the particular jurisdiction.2

Limitation of actions in this context expresses the idea that, whilst it may seem

unjust that a wrongdoer should, after expiry of the limitation period, be allowed

to retain the land as against the true owner, it would be detrimental to the public

interest if persons were to be allowed to bring ‘stale’ claims. In the words of Lord

StLeonards:3

All statutes of limitation have for their object the prevention of the rearing up of

claims at great distances of time when evidences are lost; and, in all well-regulated

countries, the quieting of possession is held an important point of policy.

Accordingly, after the limitation period has expired, the true owner who has ‘slept

on’ his rights will be barred from asserting them against the person in adverse pos-

session, and his rights will be extinguished. The squatter in possession will then have

the best claim to the land, and will be able to acquire a good title by registration,4

or he/she may simply remain in possession, which could no longer be disturbed. In

either case, he/she will have acquired a fee simple interest in the land.5

1 This passage in the text was cited by Charles J in Gosine v Gosine (2012) High Court, Trinidad

and Tobago, No CV2009–04135.

2 Treloar v Nute [1977] 1 All ER 230, 234, per Pennycuick J. See, eg, s6(3) of the Limitation Act,

Cap 43 (BVI) (12years); Dessuit v Farrington (1993) High Court, BVI, No 51 of 1990; s19 of

the Limitation Law 1991 (Cayman Islands) (12years); s16(3) of the Limitation Act 1995 (The

Bahamas) (12years); High Point Estates Ltd v Higgs (2000) Supreme Court, The Bahamas, No

246 of 2000; Impco Properties (Bahamas) Ltd v EAH Investments Ltd (2004) Supreme Court, The

Bahamas, No 2002/01788; Hitzhusen v Riley (1999) Supreme Court, The Bahamas, No 664

of 1994; Re Knowles (2010) Supreme Court, The Bahamas, No 1353 of 2008. See also s 25

of the Limitation of Actions Act 1997 (Barbados) (10years); s3 of the Limitation of Actions

Act 1973 Rev ( Jamaica) (12years); s17 of the Limitation Act, Cap 90 (StVincent and the

Grenadines) (12years); Belvedere Holdings Ltd v Matthews (2008) High Court, StVincent and the

Grenadines, No 27 of 2005; s 2 of the Real Property Limitation Act, Cap 54:07 (Dominica)

(12years); s16 of the Limitation Act, Title 8, Item 42 (Ber muda) (20years); s5 of the Title to

Land (Prescription and Limitation) Act, Cap 60:02 (Guyana) (12years); s4 of the Limitation of

Actions Act, Cap 173 (Grenada) (12years); s3 of the Real Property Limitation Ordinance, Ch

56:03 (Trinidad and Tobago) (16years); Richardson v Lawrence (1968) 10 WIR 234, 237; Poplow

v Mahabir (1994) High Court, Trinidad and Tobago, No 3254 of 1988; Highgate Dev elopment Co

Ltd v Lawrence (1994) High Court, Trinidad and Tobago, No 4878 of 1985; Benoit v Taylor (2004)

High Court, Trinidad and Tobago, No 94 of 1998; Salamat v Rajack (2009) High Court, Trini-

dad and Tobago, No S-1103 of 1994. See generally LM Jackson, (2002) 7(2) Carib LB 1–18.

3 Dundee Harbour Trustees v Dougall (1852) 1 Macq 317.

4 See, eg, Registration of Titles Act ( Jamaica), ss85, 87; Pottinger v Raone, Privy Council Appeal

No 64 of 2005.

5 In The Bahamas, s3 of the Quieting of Titles Act 1959, provides that ‘any person who claims

to have any estate or interest in land may apply to the court to have his title to such land

CHAPTER 11

ADVERSE POSSESSION